El humor es una de las formas de comunicación más complejas que existen (Veale, Brône, & Feyaerts, 2015). Algunas teorías lingüísticas sobre el humor tienen un enfoque semántico-pragmático, como la Semantic Script Theory of Humour (Raskin, 1984) o la General Theory of Verbal Humour (Attardo, 2001). Otras se inscriben en la Teoría de la Relevancia (Yus, 2016) y las hay también con una

Linguistic humour studies have been undertaken from different perspectives. The present paper offers a review of the most influential theories seeking synergies and convergence between them under the umbrella of cognitive linguistics, and, more specifically, resorting to Langacker's (2001) current discourse space (CDS) as the overall framework which can accommodate and encompass those perspectives, along with Fauconnier and Turner's (2003) Conceptual Integration Theory. A sketch of various theories is included (Raskin, 1985;Attardo, 1994;Coulson, 2005a; Veale, 2015, etc.), along with an analysis of points of convergence and similarities as the rationale for bringing them together against the backdrop of the CDS.[es] El humor en la interacción y la lingüística cognitiva: examen y convergencia de distintos enfoques Resumen. Desde el punto de vista de la lingüística, se han realizado estudios del humor desde perspectivas muy diversas. En el presente artículo se incluye una reflexión de las teorías más influyentes, con objeto de establecer entre ellas sinergias y convergencia. Se recurre, de forma concreta, al espacio actual del discurso (Langacker, 2001) como el marco general en el que confluyen dichas teorías, junto con la Teoría de Integración Conceptual de Fauconnier y Turner (2003). Se esbozan diversas teorías (Raskin, 1985;Attardo, 1994;Coulson, 2005b; Veale, 2015, etc.), además de proceder a un análisis de las coincidencias que existen entre ellas, de cara a demostrar que se pueden conjugar con el espacio actual del discurso como telón de fondo. Palabras clave: humor, lingüística cognitiva, teorías del humor, espacio actual del discurso, humor en la interacción.ferences made with stored cultural information. He claimed both systems are activated simultaneously and argued that the social system is culture-specific. To me, our conceptualisation of the world-which cannot be dissociated from our experience of it, and is therefore necessarily embodied and culture-bound-affects how we communicate in general: how we produce and interpret communicative inputs, verbal or otherwise. In my view, there is only one cognitive system allowing us to process communication through the combination of semiotic, semantic, pragmatic and cognitive elements. Furthermore, RT is only concerned with the pragmatic analysis of ostensive communication; that is, communication in which there is both a communicative intention on the part of the speaker and an informative intention, referring to the actual information that is meant to be conveyed. Accidental, non-ostensive communication is excluded from RT analysis (Yus, 2016). However, I argue that humorous communication may sometimes be non-ostensive and still achieve to convey a humorous effect retrieved by the hearer. Therefore, any account of communication including only those instances in which interlocutors clearly show they want to communicate is partial, as it is leaving aside many instances of communicative situations in which that desire to communicate is neither ostensive nor manif...